Re: [tlug] Munging Email Addresses

[David E <dave@???>]

On Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:12:09 +0900, Josh Glover <jmglov@example.com> wrote:
> On 18/12/05, bruno raoult <bruno@example.com> wrote:
> 
> > Josh Glover wrote:
> >
> > > The obscuring of email addresses seems to be a separate but related issue.
> >
> > It is not separate, as most people could reconsider their opinion if
> > their email is not hidden after the archive opening...
> 
> Sorry. What I meant by this is (in the context of my discussion with
> Steve), there are two separate-but-related issues:
> 
> 1. Having your emails publically accessible.
> 2. Having your email *address* available to spambots.
> 
> Issue (1) is about being potentially held accountable for something
> you say in a fit of passion. 

I really don't think having freaked out on the list is the only reason
someone could have for not wanting old archives opened to
search-engines.

The privacy protection provided to the archives is of course flimsy,
but far from meaningless. As Brett has pointed out, the difference in
privacy levels between something that is Google-able and something
that isn't, is huge. There are people these days (even one person I
know who runs a popular web site) who go to some pains to keep their
lives as un-google-able as possible, for a variety of reasons, not all
of them insane. My point is not to suggest that everyone should do
this (it's too late for me even if I wanted to, for example), just
that some people take their privacy more seriously than others, and
privacy related issues change over time. I suspect that some of these
people who like to post private information about their lives on their
weblogs may live to regret it.

If someone has in past years posted something to the list containing
some information that they wouldn't want publicly available it was
certainly a pretty dumb move, but I think we should err on the side of
being considerate toward past subscribers and not strip that thin veil
of privacy without their permission (whether they "deserve" to be
exposed or not).

So how about this for a democratic solution?: 

First ask subscribers for permission - get a list of "OK" addresses.  

Expunge all archived posts with to/from addresses not in the OK list. 
(should be pretty easy, no?)

Make the rest public.

Vote on whether to make archives of posts from some future date
public. Then people unhappy with the resulting policy can vote with
their virtual feet.

Thoughts?

Regards,
Gene Hackman

;)